Court Packing Threat over 2A issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
danez71

danez71

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,770
Location
CA,AZ,CA,TX
It was stated on another thread that the Democrats threats of court packing were in reference to political election issues.

That basically got the thread closed for politics.

It also not true as reported by both liberal and conservative media sources


The court packing threats from the Democrat party started before the election and were specifically addressing SCOTUS pending decision to overturn NY gun laws.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/13/gil...deralist-society-in-supreme-court-filing.html



B) You have no idea what the Democrats are going to do about the Supreme Court. The Court pack talk that I heard was in reference to the Court somehow throwing out the 2020 election in order to keep Trump in office. If they can avoid that level of crazy and partisan, I don't think the Democrats will try. And since we are both just giving opinions, mine has just as much weight as yours.
Click to expand...


A mis/under/uninformed opinion is not equal to an accurate well informed opinion.


Be well informed. Vote wisely.

Contrary to popular rants....Politicians actually often do what they say.
 
Let's not go into generic posts about the Democratic Party vs. the Republican Party. Also, if and when the court is packed or an AWB is passed on the Federal level, we can discuss it. I am loathe to close this but don't just go to rants on either side of the spectrum.

Also remember your civics class, if you ever took one, before speculating on outcomes. To pass a ban, the filibuster must be beaten (unless progun legislators fold) and then Scotus has not take the cases and/or find for the ban.
 
Packing the court would be an extreme move, like the supreme court invalidating elections in multiple states in one general election. It's checks and balances. The court knows congress has the power to change the number of justices, so it will temper its decisions with an eye towards the overall long term health of the country. This means it may uphold certain state laws that infringe on gun rights in order to bolster its legitimacy. If not, and the court gets packed, look to see the court's reputation tarnished, and another step towards the loss of rule of law.
 
I’ll leave the analysis to other people.

Being aware of it doesn’t mean that we can do anything (outside of Congress and lobby groups) about the multiple threats.

Reading extensively about it simply causes a feeling of frustration.
An enhanced understanding —of what has ;)Not yet happened (we know that it Could)— doesn’t seem as productive , at this time , as going outside for a 30-minute run or attending my two Krav Maga self-defense classes each week
(I’m 65 years old).
 
Last edited:
“If” the courts are packed (not just SCOTUS) all one has to do is look at what side packed them, and what that party’s agenda is. I’m way more concerned about court packing than I am who sits in the Oval. Republican or Democrat. The president doesn’t decide what laws or executive orders are constitutional. But as @GEM stated, SCOTUS has to agree to take the case. Rest assured, if the courts get packed, they will agree to take cases.
 
Court packing is simply the way it's done. Always has been. The president chooses federal judges and many of them are replaced with every new administration. Same with the Supreme court. It hasn't always been 9 like today. There have been as few as 5, and as many as 13 in our history. It wouldn't be terribly hard, and perfectly legal to appoint 2 more judges to make the number 11.
 
It isn't gonna happen. There are too many Democrats in both the House and Senate who have stated flat out opposition to the Idea, Sen. Manchin being one. Manchin is also opposed to eliminating the fillibuster and HR 1 is also going nowhere, it would be ruled unconstitutional. The constitution expressly gives each state the right to set their own election laws. That can't be changed without a constitutional amendment, and everyone knows how difficult THAT is. We should all stop worrying about things that will probably never happen.

And also remember that when power shifts again, the next congress can reverse the changes.
 
jmr40 said:
Court packing is simply the way it's done. Always has been. The president chooses federal judges and many of them are replaced with every new administration. Same with the Supreme court. It hasn't always been 9 like today. There have been as few as 5, and as many as 13 in our history. It wouldn't be terribly hard, and perfectly legal to appoint 2 more judges to make the number 11.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing firing and replacing Federal Prosecutors, as opposed to replacing Judges. A judge has to die or retire to be replaced.
 
The Supreme Court will ultimately decide on how many members it has. Bank on it. It can be packed only if the court allows it.
 
What is the legal basis of your claim? If the thread goes unreferenced, it's closed.
 
I don't think that SCOTUS can "ultimately decide" how many justices will sit on it. As jmr40 stated the high court has had a different number of justices on it at various points in history. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to stuff the court, but it became a hot potato in public opinion and congress, and even the Democrat party ultimately resisted the attempt so it didn't happen.

What might happen in this iteration ..... my crystal ball is coming up "TILT."
 
Could a moderator explain why discussion of the well documented, unquestionable anti-gun rights positions and intentions of the Democratic Party is controversial, let alone anathema ? This is not theory or opinion. The Democratic Party platform clearly contains measures aimed at substantially expanding federal gun laws and further restricting the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. It is not opinion; it is fact.

I understand and applaud the decision to keep other political issues off a forum that is clearly firearms focused. I don't understand the prohibition on discussing the fact that the Democratic Party advocates vastly diminished rights to keep and bear arms and that with exception of perhaps five members of Congress, uniformly endorses positions that a majority of gun owners would deem incompatible with the Second Amendment.

I would welcome and appreciate a mature and reasoned explanation.

The Democratic Party platform on gun control:

https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm
 
Because the Democratic Party is not a monolith. We have allies among certain Democrats. So if we proceed on a crusade against all Democrats we alienate supporters at a time when we need Democrat votes in chambers held by thin majorities.

We keep bipartisan and focus on the facts and we work to gain supporters from both sides of the aisle.
 
readyeddy said:
Because the Democratic Party is not a monolith. We have allies among certain Democrats. So if we proceed on a crusade against all Democrats we alienate supporters at a time when we need Democrat votes in chambers held by thin majorities.

We keep bipartisan and focus on the facts and we work to gain supporters from both sides of the aisle.
Click to expand...

I have provided a link to the Democratic Party p!atform, approved by the Party and its members, above. I can name, at most, five members of the Party in federal office that might not enthusiastically support that platform (and will do so if you would like me to). You assert that there are certain Democratic allies. I am unaware of who they may be. Could you perhaps name five Democrats at the federal level that you would qualify as "allies" to American gun owners concerned about the challenges to their right to keep and bear arms?
 
readyeddy said:
So if we proceed on a crusade against all Democrats
Click to expand...
I think he means Democrats in office. Not the ones who may live down the street or on this forum. They are NOT the same people. Just as some Republicans in office are NOT the same as those that may or may not be members of this forum. We should all do well to know the difference.

In the end, it doesn’t matter who writes or proposes anti-gun legislation. It only matters who votes for it.
 
danez71 said:
The court packing threats from the Democrat party started before the election and were specifically addressing SCOTUS pending decision to overturn NY gun laws.
Click to expand...

I do recall some talk about court packing if "they" didn't get their way on gun control, however, I think the real talk about court packing came as a response to the then Republican controlled Senate rapidly pushing through Justice Barrett's confirmation almost immediately prior to the next presidential election-something that same party refused to do when it controlled the Senate prior to the previous presidential election and an opposition president had nominated a potential justice (Garland).

(PS: That might be the longest, grammatically correct sentence I've ever written.)
 
Ru4real said:
The Supreme Court will ultimately decide on how many members it has. Bank on it. It can be packed only if the court allows it.
Click to expand...

GEM said:
What is the legal basis of your claim? If the thread goes unreferenced, it's closed.
Click to expand...

Just working within my own knowledge of the Constitution, I envision a scenario where a political party passes legislation increasing or decreasing the number of justices, and the opposition party files a lawsuit that makes its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then rules that such legislation is unconstitutional based on either Article III (which is actually quite vague) or rules that said legislation violates the Federal Judiciary Act (or some other piece of past legislation) and the court packing is abrogated. Although, if based on the Judiciary Act or other legislation, the opposition party could simply repeal or amend such act or legislation.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
I do recall some talk about court packing if "they" didn't get their way on gun control, however, I think the real talk about court packing came as a response to the then Republican controlled Senate rapidly pushing through Justice Barrett's confirmation almost immediately prior to the next presidential election-something that same party refused to do when it controlled the Senate prior to the previous presidential election and an opposition president had nominated a potential justice (Garland).

(PS: That might be the longest, grammatically correct sentence I've ever written.)
Click to expand...

Treats of court packing started over the pending NY gun laws being invalidated.

Per the article several Dems in Washington sent a letter directly to SCOTUS with a thinly veiled threat.

When it got a lot of criticism for the threat and the concept, they later accused the sitting president as doing it with Barrett* which did increase support (according to polls) for the Dem party to pack the court as a way to counter.


*While the timing of Barrett's nomination and confirmation could be game for debate, the court packing arguement was intellectually dishonest as she was filling an existing vacant seat rather than filling 1 of several newly created seats intended to be filled by a new sitting president of the same party & ideals.


DocRock said:
Could a moderator explain why discussion of the well documented, unquestionable anti-gun rights positions and intentions of the Democratic Party is controversial, let alone anathema ? This is not theory or opinion. The Democratic Party platform clearly contains measures aimed at substantially expanding federal gun laws and further restricting the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. It is not opinion; it is fact.

I understand and applaud the decision to keep other political issues off a forum that is clearly firearms focused. I don't understand the prohibition on discussing the fact that the Democratic Party advocates vastly diminished rights to keep and bear arms and that with exception of perhaps five members of Congress, uniformly endorses positions that a majority of gun owners would deem incompatible with the Second Amendment.

I would welcome and appreciate a mature and reasoned explanation.

The Democratic Party platform on gun control:

https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm
Click to expand...



Not being able to discuss the source of the majority of threats to the 2A - the mission of this site - is short sighted and is knee-capping this site, imo.

They get shut down as political or speculative etc

In Strategies & Tactics (which is not the mission of THR) its often mentioned to identify potential physical threats, anticipate actions, and prepare for them.

But we can't really do that for pending legislative threats (speculative) or for the source of the threat (political) which are actually attacking the mission stated by THR.


They say it can't be done... however TFL seems to manage to allow some degree it.

Oddly, some of the same mods/staff/admin are on both sites.

They also say the owner doesn't want it..... However, if you like the owner of this site and want to help generate more ad revenue, NTT is available if you don't mind much lower civility standards.
 
danez71 said:
Not being able to discuss the source of the majority of threats to the 2A - the mission of this site - is short sighted and is knee-capping this site, imo.

They get shut down as political or speculative etc

In Strategies & Tactics (which is not the mission of THR) its often mentioned to identify potential physical threats, anticipate actions, and prepare for them.

But we can't really do that for pending legislative threats (speculative) or for the source of the threat (political) which are actually attacking the mission stated by THR.


They say it can't be done... however TFL seems to manage to allow some degree it.

Oddly, some of the same mods/staff/admin are on both sites.

They also say the owner doesn't want it..... However, if you like the owner of this site and want to help generate more ad revenue, NTT is available if you don't mind much lower civility standards.
Click to expand...

Very well said. I'm looking for an alternative to THR, but it won't be NTT.
 
readyeddy said:
Because the Democratic Party is not a monolith. We have allies among certain Democrats. So if we proceed on a crusade against all Democrats we alienate supporters at a time when we need Democrat votes in chambers held by thin majorities.

We keep bipartisan and focus on the facts and we work to gain supporters from both sides of the aisle.
Click to expand...

That sums up my thoughts on this matter precisely.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
Very well said. I'm looking for an alternative to THR, but it won't be NTT.
Click to expand...

Let me know what you find if you don't mind. You're a poster I tend to read.

Years ago, I decided to make THR my preferred firearms related site and stopped posting on TFL ... nothing against TFL... i just dont have time for many and thought at the time THR was a better fit.


But self knee capping has lead to less discussion on important issues that are THR mission related and have also lead to increase the # of threads of " If you could only have X # of guns...' or 'If you could only buy blue guns...' or 'Whats your fantasy cartridge if you could develop it...'

Those are personal choice for use questions.

While those can be of benefit, they seem a lot less on point to THR mission statement as compared to many of the threads that get shut down for identifying the source, and tactics of 2A threats.



Identifying groups/organizations that openly threatens the 2A and then addressing the actions, strategies and proposals from those groups should be of upmost importance whether it's a D or an R or Brady or Mayors Against or Mom's Againt or any other organization.

Remember... the R's were called the D's back in history.

It's the anti 2A charter of a organization that is the issue, not the name.

Shutting down threads about the strategies and tactics of the biggest threat to the 2A is self knee capping and arguably may be hurting the pro 2A side.


But, hey, if you want to talk about writing letters after the fact, the Activism section is still available. No sense in discussing preventing anti 2A .

From above..
GEM said:
Also, if and when the court is packed or an AWB is passed on the Federal level, we can discuss it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
D.B. Cooper said:
Very well said. I'm looking for an alternative to THR, but it won't be NTT.
Click to expand...
I’m not leaving THR. There is too much knowledge here. Too many members I enjoy reading posts from. But what I don’t really understand is why this site focuses on reactionary discussion instead of proactive.

If you go to the “Deplatforming” thread here https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/deplatforming.881421/ and look at the 5th post, I give my thoughts on it. I understand the narrow focus. But under our Code of Conduct it states “Welcome to The High Road, an online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership”. That’s great. I’m all for it.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?pages/code-of-conduct/ But below the 7th house rule is this: “We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of politics, abortion, religion, and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately:”

I’m quite certain I’m not the most learned person on this forum (ok, I’m 100% certain), but how does one discuss the advancement of RKBA without discussing the theatre in which that advancement (or decline) takes place?

There is a particular Moderator here who loves to cite case law. And he does so with precision. “It doesn’t matter what you want the law to be or if you disagree with it or not. Your feelings about whether a law is unconstitutional or not is irrelevant”.....And he’s right. The problem that I have, is why aren’t we talking about things BEFORE they become law? Before we have to rely on 9 people to decide whether or not the way we want to live coincides with how they interpret the Constitution, and therefore, our right to live that way. Because it’s political? Because it’s speculation? Because it’s political speculation? The difference between political speculation and law, is a vote and a signature. That’s it.

I firmly believe that we can discuss the politics of the RKBA without devolving into Brown, Roe, or other political topics that do not have anything to do with our 2nd Amendment rights.
 
BigBore44 said:
I’m not leaving THR. There is too much knowledge here. Too many members I enjoy reading posts from. But what I don’t really understand is why this site focuses on reactionary discussion instead of proactive.

If you go to the “Deplatforming” thread here https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/deplatforming.881421/ and look at the 5th post, I give my thoughts on it. I understand the narrow focus. But under our Code of Conduct it states “Welcome to The High Road, an online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership”. That’s great. I’m all for it.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?pages/code-of-conduct/ But below the 7th house rule is this: “We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of politics, abortion, religion, and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately:”

I’m quite certain I’m not the most learned person on this forum (ok, I’m 100% certain), but how does one discuss the advancement of RKBA without discussing the theatre in which that advancement (or decline) takes place?

There is a particular Moderator here who loves to cite case law. And he does so with precision. “It doesn’t matter what you want the law to be or if you disagree with it or not. Your feelings about whether a law is unconstitutional or not is irrelevant”.....And he’s right. The problem that I have, is why aren’t we talking about things BEFORE they become law? Before we have to rely on 9 people to decide whether or not the way we want to live coincides with how they interpret the Constitution, and therefore, our right to live that way. Because it’s political? Because it’s speculation? Because it’s political speculation? The difference between political speculation and law, is a vote and a signature. That’s it.

I firmly believe that we can discuss the politics of the RKBA without devolving into Brown, Roe, or other political topics that do not have anything to do with our 2nd Amendment rights.
Click to expand...


Very well stated. You're another good poster I like to read.

The site is moderated to be reactionary (as evidenced above) in the RKBA arena.


GEM said:
Also, if and when the court is packed or an AWB is passed on the Federal level, we can discuss it.
Click to expand...
 
BigBore44 said:
how does one discuss the advancement of RKBA without discussing the theatre in which that advancement (or decline) takes place?
Click to expand...
On point, sir.

BigBore44 said:
I firmly believe that we can discuss the politics of the RKBA without devolving into Brown, Roe, or other political topics that do not have anything to do with our 2nd Amendment rights.
Click to expand...
Agreed. However, I'd posit that often on this forum -- and every other to which I belong - the conversation seems to more often takes those turns after the more liberal members offer their opinions -- not bashing, just suggesting. We are oft characterized as "single-issue" voters, while those who self-identify as not, seem to prioritize other social issues and bring them into the discussions.

So not sure where this leaves us with regard to this sort of discussion on THR. With regard to the OP, I'm also in agreement that the court-packing issue was not solely about the election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

V
  • Locked
Don't count on SCOTUS to protect our rights
Replies
4
Views
416
GEM
G
A
  • Locked
from today's Cato Daily Dispatch (www.cato.org) Interesting piece.
Replies
0
Views
318
alan
A
R
  • Locked
Court to address: Do you have a legal right to own a gun?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
crashm1
C
E
  • Locked
And you thought that Hillary as Prez would be the worst that could happen to 2A
Replies
1
Views
654
Jeff White
J
K
  • Locked
Supreme Court to hear voter ID case
Replies
0
Views
394
Kharn
K
Back
Top